I would argue that entitlement spending is bankrupting the country. The world is a very dangerous place, filled with random nutjobs who now have nuclear weapons (Kim Jong Il), an emerging superpower that regards the U.S. as, if not an enemy, at least a dangerous rival (China), and a burgeoning religious ideaology founded by our own oil money, whose ultimate goal is nothing less than the extinction of Western Civilization and all the freedoms it stands for (fundamentalist Islam). The cost of defense is huge, I'll grant you that, but the cost of being defenseless is even greater. We are about the only good guys left in a world tilting more and more towards evil every day - I want us to be so massively armed that NO ONE will jack with us.

The world is a very dangerous place, filled with random nutjobs who now have nuclear weapons (Kim Jong Il), an emerging superpower that regards the U.S. as, if not an enemy, at least a dangerous rival (China), and a burgeoning religious ideaology founded by our own oil money, whose ultimate goal is nothing less than the extinction of Western Civilization and all the freedoms it stands for (fundamentalist Islam).

My point compeletly. Our massive military spending makes us less able to compete with China, who have no occupations to pay for, and makes it much easier for radical islam to drain exactly like they did to the soviets. That's their stated goal

and we have to borrow money from China and Russia to do it which gives them all sorts of hand.

Quote

but the cost of being defenseless is even greater

We're defenseless now. We have two massive borders that are never going to be sealed and ports, malls, and airports that are sitting and waiting for terrorists to blow us up.

Our existential problem is our debt. India, Egypt, and South Korea have their own problems they can deal with.

You mean the "yet Christ gave everything" remark? I agree. It was a very cheap shot.Funny that Left-Wingers will slam Christianity as hypocritical, and then rely on it in some instances in a straw man attempt to try to make a valid point, such as this one. But yet, only we conservatives are supposed to be the only hypocrites on the block. Even funnier...Have a good laugh, my friend, 'cause that's all a statement like that is good for.

I didn't call you a hypocrite. I didn't accuse you of cheap shots. I'd let my friend Indy get away with it because we are often at odds, and discuss Christianity regularly on this forum; in my view, his politics interfere with his faith.

Oh I see, only your friends can tell you where you're wrong, but the rest of us have no right to criticize on issues that are relevant to us as well? Sorry man, the 1st Amendment isn't for friends and VIP's only. We all have a right to an opinion.

So I don't know anything about your politics. Yet, you slammed ME in two other threads, saying " I make you sick" and likening me to Glen Beck, and a few other chart toppers aimned at Right-Wing lunacy.

So is this to say that everyone who agrees with Beck on something is automatically a member of his elite fan club? No, you say? Then you in effect don't know MY total sphere of politics either. But yet you seem happy lumping ME based on MY leanings.

And you have, to be fair, totally invalidated and downplayed my feelings in a few other threads in the past, while totally validating and credentializing your own feelings. And that is another way of saying that noone has a right to an opinion unless it harmonizes with yours. And that is, in it's own right, hypocrisy. It does come in different flavors, you know.

[And my statement is at the heart of Christianity, not a cheap shot. Conservative right-wing "thinkers" like yourself are swift to condemn, and quick to define, but did you think about what I wrote?

Swift to condemn, quick to define...is that anything like the Lefties who screamed and whined about every proposed security measures under Bush 2?

The SAME ones who now support warrantless wiretapping, and the TSA grabbing breasts and crotches? Oh yes, please tell me about those who are swift to condemn, and quick to define. Especially when it suits their need to support a president with a 39% approval rating, and a Congress with a rating knee-high to a grasshopper.

I would argue that entitlement spending is bankrupting the country. The world is a very dangerous place, filled with random nutjobs who now have nuclear weapons (Kim Jong Il), an emerging superpower that regards the U.S. as, if not an enemy, at least a dangerous rival (China), and a burgeoning religious ideaology founded by our own oil money, whose ultimate goal is nothing less than the extinction of Western Civilization and all the freedoms it stands for (fundamentalist Islam). The cost of defense is huge, I'll grant you that, but the cost of being defenseless is even greater. We are about the only good guys left in a world tilting more and more towards evil every day.

Korea will always be a hotspot. The Chinese continue to support and supply N. Korea (as do the Russians.) Russian pilots filled out the ranks of their air force in the first Korean war, and the Chinese had 900,000 reinforcements at the 38th parallell in Manchuria. They probably have more today....

70's era Egypt: 300,000 Russian troops to reinforce against Israeli aggression. The Middle East is literally the Russian's best client when it comes to weapons. Oh, hello 80's era Libya.

In Vietnam, the Chinese allowed the NVA and 'Cong to have supply bases behind Chinese lines as a political buffer zone to prevent going into the North. Again, Russian pilots filled in the ranks of the NVA air force as well as arming and training Charlie with the latest and greatest weapons.

Modern day Venezuela: Soviet military presence.

And NOW, the Russians and Chinese now sit on the UN-Security Council, and have now given Iran a place to hide beneath their skirts. From Korea to Iran, the Russians have trained, armed, and supplied almost every Third World military, and now the Chinese are in on it.

The fact that every enemy since WW2 has pointed an AK-47 at us should tell you the story of just who is pulling the strings..

You mean the "yet Christ gave everything" remark? I agree. It was a very cheap shot.Funny that Left-Wingers will slam Christianity as hypocritical, and then rely on it in some instances in a straw man attempt to try to make a valid point, such as this one. But yet, only we conservatives are supposed to be the only hypocrites on the block. Even funnier...Have a good laugh, my friend, 'cause that's all a statement like that is good for.

I didn't call you a hypocrite. I didn't accuse you of cheap shots. I'd let my friend Indy get away with it because we are often at odds, and discuss Christianity regularly on this forum; in my view, his politics interfere with his faith.

Oh I see, only your friends can tell you where you're wrong, but the rest of us have no right to criticize on issues that are relevant to us as well? Sorry man, the 1st Amendment isn't for friends and VIP's only. We all have a right to an opinion.

So I don't know anything about your politics. Yet, you slammed ME in two other threads, saying " I make you sick" and likening me to Glen Beck, and a few other chart toppers aimned at Right-Wing lunacy.So is this to say that everyone who agrees with Beck on something is automatically a member of his elite fan club? No, you say? Then you in effect don't know MY total sphere of politics either. But yet you seem happy lumping ME based on MY leanings. And you have, to be fair, totally invalidated and downplayed my feelings in a few other threads in the past, while totally validating and credentializing your own feelings. And that is another way of saying that noone has a right to an opinion unless it harmonizes with yours. And that is, in it's own right, hypocrisy. It does come in different flavors, you know.

[And my statement is at the heart of Christianity, not a cheap shot. Conservative right-wing "thinkers" like yourself are swift to condemn, and quick to define, but did you think about what I wrote?

Swift to condemn, quick to define...is that anything like the Lefties who screamed and whined about every proposed security measures under Bush 2? The SAME ones who now support warrantless wiretapping, and the TSA grabbing breasts and crotches? Oh yes, please tell me about those who are swift to condemn, and quick to define. Especially when it suits their need to support a president with a 39% approval rating, and a Congress with a rating knee-high to a grasshopper.

Oh, I'm sorry...did someone forget to tell you that this is America, and that you have the right to be offended, as well as to offend?

Hey, anyone can tell me when I'm "wrong," what I suggested was that only a friend could insult me on this forum. Man, you love to argue, you're as guilty of anything you accuse anyone else of, plus, you can't read! BTW, that was NOTme "slamming" you in other threads... I could even tell you who it was. But I won't. You can't quote properly, you can't identify different members (even the one I had to lock threads over your arguing with!) It wasn't me, so... Go look through your own posting history (if you can figure out how to do that) to see who it was you sparred with, then come back and apologize for false accusations on top of insults. Or why don't you look at the last time someone boo'd your karma, follow the link on the far right, and you'll see why you were called "uncivil" and with whom you argued. Dimwit.

"Rule #1: Common CourtesyPlease be polite when posting... Flame wars are useless, so rude and insulting behavior is not tolerated."

I trust this reminder will be enough and we will not have to lock the thread.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

You mean the "yet Christ gave everything" remark? I agree. It was a very cheap shot.Funny that Left-Wingers will slam Christianity as hypocritical, and then rely on it in some instances in a straw man attempt to try to make a valid point, such as this one. But yet, only we conservatives are supposed to be the only hypocrites on the block. Even funnier...Have a good laugh, my friend, 'cause that's all a statement like that is good for.

I didn't call you a hypocrite. I didn't accuse you of cheap shots. I'd let my friend Indy get away with it because we are often at odds, and discuss Christianity regularly on this forum; in my view, his politics interfere with his faith.

Oh I see, only your friends can tell you where you're wrong, but the rest of us have no right to criticize on issues that are relevant to us as well? Sorry man, the 1st Amendment isn't for friends and VIP's only. We all have a right to an opinion.

So I don't know anything about your politics. Yet, you slammed ME in two other threads, saying " I make you sick" and likening me to Glen Beck, and a few other chart toppers aimned at Right-Wing lunacy.So is this to say that everyone who agrees with Beck on something is automatically a member of his elite fan club? No, you say? Then you in effect don't know MY total sphere of politics either. But yet you seem happy lumping ME based on MY leanings. And you have, to be fair, totally invalidated and downplayed my feelings in a few other threads in the past, while totally validating and credentializing your own feelings. And that is another way of saying that noone has a right to an opinion unless it harmonizes with yours. And that is, in it's own right, hypocrisy. It does come in different flavors, you know.

[And my statement is at the heart of Christianity, not a cheap shot. Conservative right-wing "thinkers" like yourself are swift to condemn, and quick to define, but did you think about what I wrote?

Swift to condemn, quick to define...is that anything like the Lefties who screamed and whined about every proposed security measures under Bush 2? The SAME ones who now support warrantless wiretapping, and the TSA grabbing breasts and crotches? Oh yes, please tell me about those who are swift to condemn, and quick to define. Especially when it suits their need to support a president with a 39% approval rating, and a Congress with a rating knee-high to a grasshopper.

Hey, anyone can tell me when I'm "wrong," what I suggested was that only a friend could insult me on this forum. Man, you love to argue, you're as guilty of anything you accuse anyone else of, plus, you can't read! BTW, that was NOTme "slamming" you in other threads... I could even tell you who it was. But I won't. You can't quote properly, you can't identify different members (even the one I had to lock threads over your arguing with!) It wasn't me, so... Go look through your own posting history (if you can figure out how to do that) to see who it was you sparred with, then come back and apologize for false accusations on top of insults. Or why don't you look at the last time someone boo'd your karma, follow the link on the far right, and you'll see why you were called "uncivil" and with whom you argued. Dimwit.

Interesting. So Karma Points are a big deal? As if they have anything to do with the value of my daily life. They are not a true indication of a person's worth or intelligence in the real world.

Uncivil? But yet you're calling me names, such as "dimwit" as well as your other shepie shots. I never called you any names in any past thread, and I'm being rather civil to you now. I think that's your problem, you can't upset me.

Insults? I don't namecall. And there have been past insults lodged at me w\o any real provocation other than a differing opinion, but I suppose that was OK. Care to call those wrong?

I've been rather civil in the past (sometimes) as I am doing now, only to have it thrown back at me when the time came to find a reason to lock a thread. So if this thread gets locked, it'll most likely be both of us resp. for it, and not one.

So on that note, I'll see you down at the end of lonely street, at Heartbreak Hotel. the first drink is on me.

I really wish you'd learn how to post on this website if you're going to quote. Don't you get it? You have confused me with another member. False accusations one should never sit still for. Plus, I was not the one who called you "uncivil". Did you look at your own karma to learn who it was you had argued with (and the person who referred to you as "uncivil" was NOT the person you butted heads with). Yes I call you Dimwit, because that's how you behave. But I only wish you PEACE.Happy Thanksgiving.